It’s been a bumpy year since Canada’s Online News Act was passed, or given royal ascent, last June, with Meta and Google objecting to the act as it was written.

Sixteen months later, it has evolved quite a bit. Here’s a look at the history and current situation of the legislation. 

Almost immediately after the act passed, Meta announced its intent to block Canadian news as well The Guardian, The New York Times, and The Washington Post for Canadian users.

And although the act was amended, Meta implemented blocking on Facebook and Instagram last August, including blocking the Instagram accounts of some major news organisations — even though the law did not become effective until December. 

Its explanation? “The only way we can reasonably comply with this legislation is to end news availability for people in Canada,” Meta said in its blog.

McGill University’s Media Ecosystem Observatory found in its report, Old News, New Reality: A Year of Meta’s Ban in Canada, that:

• Almost half of news media engagement has disappeared.

• Almost one-third of local news outlets are now inactive.

• Three quarters of the Canadian public is unaware of the ban.

• News is still being shared on Facebook and Instagram.

• Less news is being consumed by Canadians.

As if that wasn’t a big enough hit, Google announced it was removing links from Search, News, and Discover, as well as shutting down News Showcase, under which it had agreements with 150 Canadian news publications. It blocked news to some Canadian users in a “small test” and laid plans to completely block news by the time the rules were scheduled to come into effect. 

In response, News Media Canada, the Canadian Association of Broadcasters (CAB), and the CBC/Radio Canada called on the country’s antitrust regulator, the Competition Bureau, to investigate Meta’s alleged abuse of its dominant position and prohibit it from blocking news on its platforms. 

The group’s statement said, “Meta’s anti-competitive conduct, which has attracted the attention of regulators around the world, will strengthen its already dominant position in advertising and social media distribution and harm Canadian journalism,” adding, “Meta’s practices are clearly designed to discipline Canadian news companies …”

Additionally, multicultural, community, local, and national news and trade organisations jointly called on the Canadian Radio Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) to “make regulations with respect to the Online News Act that will ensure consistency and fairness, maximise newsroom investment, enhance transparency, and minimize misrepresentation,” said Yahoo/Finance.

The exemption question

Since June 2023, there has been considerable debate about how to proceed with creating a workable arrangement with both platforms. 

Here’s a brief chronology of developments:

Between September 2 and October 2, 2023 — before issuing the final regulations — the Department of Canadian Heritage held a public consultation on the proposed regulations and the Regulatory Impact Assessment Statement, which described the draft regulations and how they were developed.

In December, the department announced an agreement of up to five years under which Google would contribute C$100 million to Canadian news organisations in year one. In January, the government released the Online News Act Application and Exemption Regulations, under which Google seeks an exemption from the act. 

“This step forward announced today will ensure eligible news organisations will receive fair compensation from Google’s contribution to Canada, so journalists can continue to do the important work Canadians deserve and respect,” said a spokesperson for Heritage Minister Pascale St-Onge. 

Between February 28 and April 30, Google satisfied one of the requirements for exemption when it ran an “open call” for news organisations “self-identified as eligible to receive contributions” that sought to be included in the distribution of Google’s C$100 million payout, allocated under the Online News Act. (Google provided the long and final list of news businesses replying to the open call here.)

The C$100 million is for the first year and will be indexed in future years via a single agreement earmarked for a group of eligible media companies, according to the National Post. The CRTC sought input on Google’s request for exemption through August 6. 

MediaNama reports the CRTC has considered ways to further the goals of the act such as:

• Limiting the length of the exemption order.

• Requiring  Google to conduct periodic open calls to expand the number of news organisations the act covers.

• Requiring Google to fund participation of public interest participants in this proceeding as a condition of exemption.

In early June, Google announced it had reached an agreement with the Canadian Journalism Collective (CJC) to distribute the Google funds, as the regulations allow. CJC is a federally incorporated non-profit organisation, founded in May and created specifically to distribute these funds. There are a dozen independent media outlets on the steering committee representing French language, community, and Indigenous news, and publications that specifically represent Black and minority Canadians.

MediaNama noted that as a newly created entity, there is little information about how the CJC will govern itself, distribute funds, ensure compliance, and settle disputes. Until then, the Canadian Radio Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) said it would be “unable to determine if Google’s agreement with the CJC satisfies requirements [of the act].”

CJC had only the Online News Media Collective to oppose it after Google announced an open call for organisations to manage the fund. It is a consortium representing hundreds of publications, including CBC, the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, News Media Canada, and the National Post, which together, according to the Post, encompass about 95% of the news industry in Canada. Of the fund, C$63 million, or two-thirds of the fund, is reserved for written media outlets.

In early August, News Media Canada filed comments with the CRTC opposing the exemption, until its concerns about CJC are addressed, including these — among quite a few others:

• Greater CRTC oversight and validation of the eligibility of the news business, with monetary penalties for any news business that makes a false attestation with respect to eligibility.

• A cap on administrative fees incurred by the collective.

• Possible conflicts of interest if CJC prioritises its own interests over those of the industry at large.

However, Google said it won’t release those funds until it receives the exemption. When it does, the fund is to be allotted proportionately to the number of full-time equivalent employees engaged in the production of news content, the Post explained. 

Google, for its part, also announced on its blog that although it will continue to maintain some Google News Initiative programming in Canada, its investments will be non-monetary. Google News Showcase will cease to operate in Canada later this year, affecting roughly 150 publications. The CRTC sought input on Google’s request for exemption through August 6.

Beginning October 1 and ending November 1, the CJC will accept applications from journalism organisations that wish to participate in the distribution of funds: “News businesses that missed the previous open call conducted by Google may also apply, but their eligibility to receive funds is subject to a pending decision by the CRTC.”

News media response

Ryan Adam, vice president/government and public relations at Torstar Corporation, told the National Post he is perplexed Google chose CJC since it “has relatively little experience in this area.” He expressed concern over:

• The timing of the payments.

• Transparency in the administration of the payments.

• The opacity of the definition of “qualified journalist.”

• The potential for organisations that don’t meet the qualifications will “start to flood the count in years going forward.”

He also said, however, that “if this collective is transparent and clear about who qualifies and who doesn’t qualify, and they are open with us and communicate with us, then moving forward, I don’t think we have a huge problem.”

MediaNama reports the CRTC has considered ways to further the goals of the act such as:

• Limiting the length of the exemption order.

• Requiring  Google to conduct periodic open calls to expand the number of news organisations the act covers.

• Requiring Google to fund participation of public interest participants in this proceeding as a condition of exemption.

What’s next?

Paul Deegan, INMA member and president/CEO of News Media Canada told INMA that, as of August, there had been “no movement on the Meta front. Re:Google, our regulator (the CRTC) has to decide. The next step is for stakeholders to comment on the submissions from other stakeholders due today. After that, the CRTC staff will have to go through all the input and draft a paper for the commissioners. In terms of timing, it’s up to the CRTC, but we would hope they make a decision in the next 90 days or so.”

For an ongoing analysis of the global relationships developing between news media organisations and Big Tech platforms, see Digital Platform Initiative Lead Robert Whitehead’s December article here. Find additional detail on the CRTC’s process here.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .